Research On The Criminal Regulation System Of "Traffic Hijacking"

The “traffic hijacking” behavior refers to the use of technical means such as breaking the computer information system,intercepting or forging data,and causing computer users to not directly engage in online activities by forcibly switching or inserting network content,interrupting access,inducing,deceiving,etc.to achieve direct Or indirectly increase the "user visit" behavior of others.Before 2015,the "traffic hijacking" behavior was always regarded as unfair competition behavior,or it was dealt with according to civil infringement or administrative violation,and it has not yet been subject to the criminal regulation system.In recent years,"traffic hijacking" has spread more rapidly and the trend has intensified.In May 2015,the People’s Court of Shanghai Pudong New Area made the first verdict on “traffic hijacking”.The People’s Court of Yubei District of Chongqing Municipality and the People’s Court of Shapingba County of Chongqing Municipality also issued judgments on this behavior.They determined that the hacker constituted a computer breach.Crimes of information system,illegal control of computer information systems and illegal acquisition of computer information system data.The above sentencing judgement serves as a benchmark for the effective regulation of "traffic hijacking",but the court’s handling is also puzzling:First,different courts have different convictions for the same type of "traffic hijacking" behavior.This shows that there is a huge difference in how qualitatively“traffic hijacking”behavior is.Second,the sentencing of the actor is mainly based on the amount of his illegal income.Whether or not this type of sentencing method of “the only amount of money”can accurately reflect the law infringement of“traffic hijacking”is not without doubt.This article starts from the computer principle of "flow hijacking" and the legal relationship involved,and considers that "traffic hijacking" consists of three basic relationships:the infringement relationship between hackers and Internet users;the infringement relationship between hackers and victim websites;The commission relationship with the beneficiary website.The infringement relationship directly destroys the network management order,and the commissioning relationship does not directly infringe the network management order.According to the article,the legal infringement of "traffic hijacking" should be the network user’s freedom of the Internet,privacy and property rights,and the property rights of the victim’s website.Based on this,the thesis combined with the cases at the beginning of the article analysis,pointed out that the crime of sabotaging the computer information system,the crime of illegally controlling the computer information system,and the illegal acquisition of computer information system data crimes are three crimes independent of each other,and they are illegally involved in the competing relationship;This paper points out that the current judicial practice in our country has the root cause of the lack of conviction and sentencing for the "traffic hijacking" behavior.The article points out that if the "traffic hijacking" behavior infringes on different legal interests,it shall be counted for the combination of crimes,and it may not be dealt with in accordance with the imagination.At the same time,the dissertation analyzes the sentencing basis of“serious consequences”as a measure of“traffic hijacking”in judicial practice,and points out its inadequacies,combining the legislative provisions of the United States’ Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the European Commission’s Cybercrime Convention.It is recommended that add "illegal interception" and "data interference" to the types of computer crimes,and include the "degree of damage caused to others" as an essential element rather than a selective element to include the criterion of "serious consequences".The victimized user,the number of computers,and the scope of the hijacked domain are the main criteria for conviction and penalty,not the amount of illegal income.;the number of victims and computers And the scope of hijacking the domain as the main criterion for conviction and penalty,rather than the amount of illegal income.